3

I was reading Rubaiyat of Omar Khayyam, translated by Edward FitzGerald. In introduction, the translator writes:

Khayyam was born at Naishapur.

I always thought that we needed to use in in such a case. Am I wrong, or is the usage of at legitimate but perhaps old-fashioned?

Edit: A similar question was asked before, which lead people to think that mine is a duplicate of that. However, it is not, because that question asks In which case should we use 'in' or 'at' for a city?", while what I am asking is Why 'at' is used in a case we are taught 'in' would be appropriate? To be more specific, I was born in a city is the widely accepted usage today, probably due to the fact that we perceive a city as a three-dimensional space in that context, referring to the most upvoted answer to the referred question. My question should be seen as a counter-example to the answers given to that question, because I provide an example, where FitzGerald wrote born at a city, and wonder if that is just an old-fashioned usage that we no longer use or there is more to it.

Improve this question
9
  • 2
    When I was learning the piano as a child, I remember noticing how the books of exam pieces used to say things like "W.A. Mozart; born at Salzburg 1756, died in Vienna 1791", as though 'in' was only considered appropriate for the largest cities.
    – Kate Bunting
    Commented Jul 28, 2019 at 6:56
  • This question comes up quite often. Just one example: Difference between “at” and “in” when specifying location
    – Michael Harvey
    Commented Jul 28, 2019 at 8:33
  • 1
    @Michael That’s somewhat different, though – of all the answers there, only Barrie England’s makes any note of the possible use of at with city names, which is what this question is about. (Actually, I think it’s what the other question was really about as well, since Puri is a city, but the answers all seem to have taken it for a generic question about when to use in and when to use at.)
    – Janus Bahs Jacquet
    Commented Jul 28, 2019 at 10:41
  • 1
    @Fatih It’s legitimate, but old-fashioned. Like Kate, my impression is that it wasn’t used willy-nilly, really, but I’ve never quite managed to get a good grasp on when people used to use at for cities. Cities in India and other colonised parts of the British Empire seem to have been especially prone to being at’ed, but I don’t know why. Many old books also have “Printed at [City]” on the title page. I think this is an excellent question. This isn’t a matter of American English, though, so I’ve removed that tag (and improved the formatting).
    – Janus Bahs Jacquet
    Commented Jul 28, 2019 at 10:43
  • 1
    Shoe's and D.F.'s answers are not relevant here. [Born] 'in' would be the default choice, 'at' idiosyncratic at best. /// These Google Ngrams indicate that 'was born in' is the normal choice, though 'was born at' is not unknown (though the former is now ten times as common). I've checked for false positives (temporal).
    – Edwin Ashworth
    Commented Jul 28, 2019 at 14:55

1 Answer 1

Reset to default
5

You are correct; we would generally use in today.

The Rubaiyat of Omar Khayyam was translated by Fitzgerald in 1859. Since then, the preposition generally used with born in/at [city] has changed.

See this Ngram

The Ngram shows that in 1800, the usage born at Paris was much more common. Now, the usage born in Paris is much more common. The cross-over date, when both expressions were equally common, is something like 1880.

Improve this answer

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .